National Hat-Pouncing Machine Co. v. Thom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The defendants contend at the outset that the Eickemeyer patent is void for want of utility. The Eickemeyer machine never came into the market. It appears that the only machines built were those used in this suit. In view of the fact, however, that the evidence shows that a machine ruado after the Eickemeyer patent is practically operative for pouncing hats in the manner described, this defense falls to the ground. The Taylor machine may be an improvement on Eickemeyor’s, by reason of avoiding the necessity of feed-rollers, and by reason of its simplicity of construction; and it may, in consequence, be very valuable commercially, and the best pouncing machine in use; but this will not protect Taylor oy the defendants in the use of the specific mechanism described in the specification, and embodied in the claims of the Eickemeyer patent; provided, as has been shown, that the Eickemeyer ma chine is operative for the purpose it was‘designed. But the main controversy is over the second claim of the Eiekemeyer patent, which described the combination of a rotating pouncing cylinder with a vertical supporting horn, wherein the horn is used to support the whole hat body during the operation of pouncing. It is said that the Rougaret machines anticipate, in substance, this claim. It is apparent, however, that the Nougaret machines employ a long horn. They do not make use of a supporting horn of such a small size that the hat may be freely turned thereon, and so supported in the machin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. National Hat-Pouncing Mach. Co. v. Brown

2. ““My invention further consists in an arrangement of the pouncing cylinder and a rest or supporting horn for the hat body, which can be introduced within the crown to support it against the cutting action of the pouncing cylinder during the operation of pouncing, the arrangement being such as to dispense with the use of a hat block in pouncing the tips and side crown of the hats. ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. National Hat-Pouncing Mach. Co. v. Brown

3. ““I claim (2.) The arrangement and combination of a rotating pouncing cylinder with a vertical supporting horn, substantially as described, whereby the supporting horn may be used to support the tip, side crown, or brim during the operation of pouncing the hat. ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. National Hat-Pouncing Mach. Co. v. Brown